Again, cites that did not show what you claimed or related to the point being made. Like in this case: your say so of “But the article you cited says nothing about him or his team not being under surveillance.” was wrong. The article did say something.
Now the writer could be wrong, but that is another story, clearly it did use also logic to point at why is that Trump and his staff were not under surveillance.
QFT.
Can you quote the part of the article that has the words “under surveillance”?
:rolleyes: (needed to add something or the post can not be made 
)
C’mon, everybody knows where this is going.
He’ll say he has incontrovertible proof but can’t/won’t provide it, because whatever.
Because when I think of whistleblowers, I think of employee’s of the President providing flimsy defenses of why a President’s lie can be distorted to be less of a lie.
Is it your contention that the National Security Council reported this alleged crime to the FBI before calling in a member of Trump’s transition team to investigate?
True.
This is a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.
Yes, the article says that Trump was not the target of surveillance. It doesn’t say he was not under surveillance - but for some reason you keep insisting it does.
“Unmasking” seems to be the conservative/ Fox News talking point of the weekend. I don’t get it.
If a conversation is captured where a couple of people are discussing developing influence with a wealthy real estate mogul that is running for president of the United States, does it matter if the guy’s NAME is redacted? It seems to me that the Trump Situation is unique and he would be recognizable whether you not you showed his name.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
This is simple, for anybody else.
If both Trump and the foreigners were under surveillance the article would had said that both where under surveillance, The context is very clear in the article.
Your point that “for some reason I keep insisting” is asinine because the reason is there. The article makes the point that the people under surveillance were foreigners, not Americans.
I gave you several fairly mainstream sources, from Reuters to The Week to EFF that use “under surveillance” phrase for people who were not targets of surveillance. Specifically for such people.
As I said before, if you’re not “under surveillance”, the transcripts of your conversations with your name attached do not wind up widely disseminated in the intelligence community.
The Donald has a habit of blurting out things without really thinking it through … of course the US military monitors the activity of all our enemy’s spies in this country … so if the enemy is communicating with the Trump campaign … then the military is monitoring the campaign …
Less clear is why Trump campaign officials were communicating with our enemies …
Meh, you are only trying to tap dance now, the reality is that the point was about you complaining about what the article said.
The evidence here demonstrates that you were wrong many times about what the article said, and unnecessarily trying to turn me or others as people that do not understand what the article said. You are also missing here, on purpose it seems, that the point was that me and others do follow the logic and what was written properly, thank you very much.
But you do not. And as noted by others you are also making mistakes about your cites too.
Just to keep things in perspective here.
Yes. Your article said Trump was not the target of surveillance. That was already stipulated. It didn’t say he was not “under surveillance”. You keep insisting it did. Maybe you don’t understand what it said?
If someone is ‘under surveillance’, then he is the ‘target of surveillance’. You are not Humpty Dumpty.
Not according to Reuters, MarketWatch, EFF, and The Week articles I posted.
The whole thing seems to me as a very sorry effort to cover up a mistake of the dear leader. Clearly Obama did not order Trump to be under surveillance. But here I remember Trump’s example of the Hitler speeches that he was reported to be reading that was made worse in a follow up interview by Trump himself, when he decided that it was “better” to explain that the book was not the speeches of Hitler as a part of becoming a better orator, but that the book was “Mein Kampf” itself. That was really sad. But Trump does like to boast of something else or bigger that in his mind does explain away his original gaffe.
So far what I can see is that Trump and minions leaked possibly an error or did deduce who the people were that were not under surveillance and were masked. And assume that bit of info will make the original lie of the dear leader disappear.
That the remedy is worse that the disease has not dawned on Trump and minions yet. Knowing how shady the people Trump did choose for his cabinet I do think that the unmasking was done to please the president. Forgetting that by doing so a lot of secret information was leaked and enemies or criminals have been forewarned. This does remind me of a lot of the moves that the mini me of Trump, Joe Arpaio, did in Arizona to make his contempt of court case to be declared a mistrial.
What I said is that the article does take care of both the silliness of using both fig leafs of Trump and buddies “being a target of surveillance” or being “under surveillance” both are dismissed of in the article.
Edited to add: and clearly Reuters does not follow your definition in other articles about the issue so one has to assume that when you cherry pick you are indeed just ignoring that in the popular press many are not very specific or go for common usage. However when they do stop and decide to explain what we have so far Articles like the one VOX made and the latest from Reuters shows that indeed you are the one not understanding what is going on.
Yes, but is there any indication of dealings with foreign powers that are in any way improper or beyond normal diplomatic conventions?
If not, why did they lie and claim they never had such conversations?